What do you think. Is porn bad for us? — TaySan

How would we know if it was bad for us?

And God has no power to stop people from doing these things? Or doesn't know he needs to? Or he just doesn't bother? Which is it? — Pfhorrest

You'll find everyone has a version of God that makes sense of the world for them. He can be anything from an all powerful autocrat, to the ground of being, depending on the believer's personality. In the end all we have of god are claims made by people. There isn't sufficient reason to be overly concerned about the logic of any of those claims.

Dan Dennett is known for his "no good reasons for believing" in God argument. I always found this more or less a cop out on his part. This really amounts to saying that he can't come up with any.... — Pantagruel

Wrong interpretation. He says he has heard pretty much every (traditional and loopy) reason people give and none of these pass standards of reason or evidence. Nothing wrong with that. Most atheists argue this way and use the shorthand phrase "no good reasons for believing". However if you accept the theistic claims made by people who argue from personal experience or mysticism then you may consider Dennett's position vulnerable.

However through study and discovery we, together, can be right about morality. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

How do you figure that? I think what societies develop is a shared response of prohibitions and interdictions (the law) for the nominal sake of preserving the society. People are always in disagreement about those laws (drug policy, gun ownership, gay marriage, etc).

I may be mistaken but I don't believe that human sacrifices were ever done because they thought that human sacrifice in and of itself was a good thing. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

The idea of the good may not resonate with a culture that bases ethics on that which pleases the gods. Good being whatever pleases God. There are many Christians today who hold this view - divine command theory.

My argument is that if you say that there is no morality then moral progress would stop. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

My argument is that if you say there is a right answer but we have no way to discover it, this is functionally the same.

Where do these cultural standards come from? From what I can see cultural standards are derived from absolutes. It is merely that one culture values on standard above the other. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

I think the central point of your argument is held in that sentence - a form of moral idealism. Kant being a famous exemplar of this view. And here I don't think you have yet produced a compelling argument. As we have seen morals are utterly different around the world. Killing, for instance, means different things in different cultures - some taboo, some not. Your job would be to demonstrate somehow that moral truths exists independently of custom and culture. Are you saying that true morality exists outside us somehow as separate from human nature - our job being to uncover it?

My argument is simply that there is a moral right and moral wrong, without which our moral rebukes, including the thought that we should not subscribe to set moral laws, are groundless. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

I don't have any philosophy background either so for what it's worth, my take. Thanks for the syllogism. It clarifies your argument.

quote="Fides Quaerens Intellectum;514651"]
1. Moral relativism claims that there is no independent moral standard.
2. Judgements of value cannot be made without an independent standard.
3. Actions have value.
4. Therefore moral relativism is false.[/quote]

2. is not accurate. Judgements are made according to cultural standards and custom and personal preferences - these are not objective but may be shared by many. Relativism does not deny there are independent standards, it just says that there are many of these standards and they are not shared, they differ between folks and assessing one against the other isn't possible.

There are a couple of additional points:

If we hold a position that there is a right way to behave morally but we may be unable to identify or justify this conclusively, then how is this different in practical terms to relativism? My default could be to accept any action until you demonstrate how it is wrong.

The strong intuition people have against certain taboos and actions perhaps says more about socialization and culture than anything else. You can say killing is wrong in almost all cultures but that is not specific enough. In some cultures infanticide is or was practiced, or human sacrifice/wife burning, etc. Killing is subject to interpretations. Drilling down into specific actions helps clarify the moral morass that is human behavior.

Objective ethics? They could be considered objective subject to an agreed presupposition. If you agree that all moral behavior should be assessed by their impact on human flourishing (for instance) then it may be possible to build close to objective standards. However, you have to agree to the presupposition. Therein lies a problem.

"believe only that which empowers you most, everything else is used to instill fear in you and doesn't serve you in any way, even if it is true." — Thinking

The issue I see with this statement is that it is open to many interpretations and comes with some odd assumptions from where I sit.

What does empowerment mean in your context? How do you know when something is empowering and when it is not?

What do you mean by 'everything else' - what are you turning away form? And what is 'instill fear'? With respect, it all sounds slightly paranoid to me. Who is instilling fear? And why? Or is this a by product? How do you determine the diving line between the empowering knowledge and that which is 'everything else'?

People's world views are often self-fulfilling. If they believe life is a jungle - that's what it will look like. If they think life is transcendent - that's what it will look like.

I personally have little interest in social Darwinist/law of the jungle models - what makes life interesting for me is not following a formula or a schema as much as is possible in the full knowledge that there are influences and factors beyond our control and knowledge. I am not looking to be empowered or enhanced by any particular worldview. I am mostly comfortable just being - with all the usual swirling mass of influences and constraints that might entail.

But if we adopted this mindset then the powerful would rule everyone and the weak would have no chance. We would actually be going in the opposite direction of where we wanted to be headed. — Fides Quaerens Intellectum

Is this not the direction we are going in?

Do you think you can put your argument into a syllogism?

The problem of morality - which you have essentially described as a code of conduct - isn't resolved so much in how people behave and how they want to be treated, but in the justification of applied ethics. What would give someone the authority to say the ethical behaviour of any given tribe or culture is wrong?

True, but there is such a thing as conversion. — Wayfarer

Of course. And de-conversion or apostasy.

Always interesting Wayfarer. I'm not sure arguments matter all that much on either side of the God/atheism divide. I suspect it's usually a case of a post hoc shoe shuffle. I'm inclined to think (and I forget where I heard this quip) that having a propensity towards atheism or god/mysticism is more of an innate preference, like sexual orientation. You can't choose what you believe in.

I can't incorporate the Tillich conception any more than the sky-father variations. The ineffable and the insufferable just don't move me, although Tillich is more fun. In the end I'm quite pleased for people to enjoy a contemplative life as long as they don't harm others. This is much less likely to be the case when the theist literalists dominate the agora.

Nagel may be partly right. The problem with the more famous atheists and their acolytes is that they are in locked into a form of internecine conflict that greatly reduces/limits the scope of their thinking. War makes monsters of everyone.

Belief comes from fear and is the most destructive thing. One must be free of fear and of belief. Belief divides people, makes them hard, makes them hate each other and cultivate war. J Krishnamurti

I agree that it is very hard to define freedom, but it's really easy to tell when you've lost it. — synthesis

Hmm - I'm not so sure. Obvious examples like restrictions on movement or religious freedom, sure. Hong Kong today versus 1999, certainly. However some of this is subtle stuff. People don't always make connections and some freedoms are lost via stealth and there's the fact that some people might not see a given issue presented as a question of freedom - COVID mask wearing, for instance.

:100:

I don't think poetic insights are incompatible with reason, — WaterLungs

Neither do I but they are often positioned in this way. The great battle between Enlightenment and Romanticism.

Modern society is obsessed with authenticity and self-fulfillment, to fulfill one's potential is seen as the highest value. — WaterLungs

Very true. Is this what happens when religion fades?

How can one reach one's potential without being inserted in a community? — WaterLungs

Community is not very popular with some people who prefer individualism. Reaching 'one's potential' is a meaningless notion. 'Reaching some potential' might be more accurate but downbeat. We are potentially many people - opportunity, effort, luck, all play a role.

Sorry for this pseudo-intellectual rant. — WaterLungs

Why should you be the only one here to apologize for this? :wink:

Maybe most people are just as happy to live under a set of authoritarian edicts as long as they can have access to things like cheap junk food, lightening quick internet, 2-day free shipping, and free pornography, you know, the essentials of life. — synthesis

I think this is largely true. As long as Soylent Green isn't people, why care? Few people I have spoken to can tell me what freedom actually is in any coherent form and I certainly don't have a robust conception of it. I know Americans seem to be very fond of the term, but I am sure it is understood differently (and not just across Liberal/Conservative lines). I'm tempted to think that notions of freedom are as great a source of internecine squabbles and irresolvable argument as religion.

"Conclusion": I think Chesterton is wrong, making a faulty generalization. Both mathematicians, philosophers and artists have to deal with high level abstractions and uncertainty, mystery is part of their day-to-day lives.

Do you agree or disagree with my view? If you think I'm wrong, I would appreciate you could help me see things more clearly. Thank you for reading. — WaterLungs

Chesterton as a writer was a witty polemicist and not someone I would go to to learn psychological truths about human beings. His comments sound like good, old fashioned bullshit and fits into C's whole shtick of making impactful, paradoxical statements that seem like insights. But in the end there is no evidence, no attempt at precision or definitions (as has already been said), so pretty much worthless. How would we even test such a claim? I think it's the kind of opinion that often undergirds a romantic view of truth - that poetic insights are deeper and somehow more authentic and grounding than those acquired by reason, which lead us to banal tautologies and rob the world of the numinous. The New Age movement used to be constipated by views like these.

This, actually, can be due to the fact also, that theists are a somewhat incapable bunch. — god must be atheist

I'm more generous about some theists. I think there is a very interesting school of theists that include people like Tillich and David Bentley Hart, who are very learned and deep thinkers about philosophy and being. In the end, if people believe in some form of a deity - as long as they are not changing laws to suit their worldview and they play nice with others - I don't care too much. For me it is mainly about the impact of their beliefs on others - I realize this is not an exact science.

I think Singer's book (which I read years ago) is intended to be a provocation. I give a percentage of my money away every year to various causes I have chosen. I am privileged and I benefit from the suffering of others. I do additional things as opportunities present and consider altruism to be a never settled affair, as I am sure Singer does. I think in the end most altruism is self-interested.

"God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue God exists is to deny Him. It is as atheistic to affirm God as it is to deny Him. God is being-itself, not a being." ~Paul Tillich, theologian-philosopher — 180 Proof

My local parish priest says the same thing - God does not exist, that lowly status belongs only to things of the world. God as Tillich's the 'ground of being' fades from my mind the more I consider it.

Do atheists actively not want God to exist? I am aware that many atheists come to their conclusion because they believe God is impossible and other reasons. However, is there ever an element of not wanting God to exists? — Georgios Bakalis

Atheists hold many different views - it is not a consistent system and doesn't intend to be. You need to open this up. Which God are you referring to?

Theists are also atheists when it comes to other religion's Gods. Does the Christian hope that Allah does not exist - or Waheguru or Ahura Mazda? You bet. The literal God of the Bible's Old Testament is like a Mafia boss and a moral black hole who condones slavery and genocide - who would want this?

What about the various Gods found in all the versions of Christianity? There is not one Jehovah or Jesus. The God of a Catholic liberation theology activist will be utterly unrecognizable to the God of a Southern Baptist. There's a presupposition held that people within a single religious tradition are worshipping the same god. I don't think this is accurate.

Atheism generally holds that there is no good reason to accept the proposition that a god exists. I personally don't think the idea of a God as described by theism makes enough coherent sense to be thought of as more than a human construct.

:pray:

the last word was supposed to be a adults — MAYAEL

I prefer it as attles. It's funnier.

On the other hand - your appeals to ‘evidence’ kind of miss the point when it comes to the kinds of questions that are considered in these issues. — Wayfarer

Yep, I am well aware of the... shall we call it contradiction? It's how I am. I am not a nimble thinker. Having hung around many mystics, Buddhists, yoga practitioners and earnest meditators for 20 years - people whose lives were all pretty much riddled with anxieties and status seeking (spiritual rather material) - I throw a jaundiced eye at the benefits of the contemplative life.

Thanks for the tip re Mr Barnes, W. I know Australian Anglicans pretty well as it happens. I enjoy a bit of muscular Christianity every now and then and consider myself, like most Westerners, marinated in the tradition.

The wayfarer,
Perceiving the pathway to truth,
Was struck with astonishment.
It was thickly grown with weeds.
"Ha," he said,
"I see that none has passed here
In a long time."
Later he saw that each weed
Was a singular knife.
"Well," he mumbled at last,
"Doubtless there are other roads."

When the Dawkins of the world insist that there has to be scientific evidence for religious belief, the only people they're arguing against are those who insist on a literal reading of scriptures, namely, fundamentalists.) — Wayfarer

I think that's largely true. I think I remember Dawkins saying somewhere that there wasn't much point arguing with progressive believers as their ideas don't do any harm. Somewhat patronizing and evasive, but I get what he means.

Scientific materialists will NEVER claim what you claim they claim. Science can't prove anything.

Religion is based on belief, so anything goes. They don't need proof. — god must be atheist

I'm an atheist and I hold that (for now) methodological naturalism is our best source of reliable knowledge. There are people who hold philosophical naturalism who have an almost fundamentalist zeal for science's abilities to discern all that is true. (I prefer Laurence Krauss's no doubt cribbed definition of science facts as not being 'true', they are 'not false'.) And there are many religious believers who think of science as doing God's work and that the stories of the Bible, say, are allegories.

Plainly I'm not a physicist, nor do I find the subject particularly interesting. But it is clear that in the knowledge gaps prominent in physics, ideas are assumed by some about consciousness and matter. Speculation is rife and why would it not be? The quantum conundrums have provided an opportunity for a lot of contestable claims to flourish. And, as always, where there are gaps the fallacy from ignorance may bloom. As soon as someone can provide robust evidence (I am still hung up on this word) that our incomplete knowledge of physics definitely leads to, let's say non-dualism or a brave new world of higher consciousness, fine.

I doubt it. Can you think of an example where people are less preoccupied about the contents of a minimum standard provision than a more comprehensive one? Even just determining what is called 'virtue based' and what is 'necessary' is going to cause an almighty shit fight, I would think. The less there is to go around, the more desperate people may become.

Maybe some examples of how it could look?

I am not talking about whether one thing is more evil than another. Rather I'm saying the taxes we pay to the government should be paying the minimum amount to maintain its own existence, and anything beyond that should be done by individuals. Virtue through the government doesn't work because we cannot agree on the virtue. — FlaccidDoor

I'm not sure you can get agreement on whatever you mean exactly with 'minimum amount to maintain its own existence.'

Amen Brother.

What are the reasons of them being good and bad? — RBS

You will find millions of words on this subject under 'ethics' or 'morality'.

People do not agree on good or bad and probably never will. There are too many variables and influences. However, if you are a religious fundamentalist certainty on these ideas may seem more likely. Under the divine command theory, bad is anything God commands us not to do.

Determining good from bad, right from wrong generally follows social, cultural or religious lines. Working out what is right from what is wrong may also be context dependent. It may be ok to lie, steal or murder during a time of dangerous conflict - if it helps you to survive. Unless you are Kant... but let's not go there.

These days, with increasing secularism, an action is generally seen as bad if it causes harm. It is considered good is if it promotes wellbeing. Naturally how you measure this and who gets to define harm or wellbeing is fraught. It is not an exact science. But what is?

I sometimes wonder if that’s what everyone here is doing.... Philosophy as an escape from reality. A socially acceptable form of daydreaming perhaps. — khaled

Or perhaps a substitute for doing anything practical.

What followed was a global backlash. Manufacturing was replaced by finance. The power of labor was demolished. Regulations of all kinds diminished. Finally a new elite came into being as a result of what was supposed to be a return to freedom.

Read David Harvey's book on it. It's good. One of things it will tell you is why there are 5000 orphans on our southern border. — frank

Yes and Tony Judt's book 'Ill Fares the Land'.

Indeed. No argument there.

I was referencing one of the most important reasons that man invented God (if He does not exist). Again, moral authority must come from a source (The Absolute) which cannot be challenged. IOW, God said you should be (fill in the blank).

Are you going to argue with God (in public)? — synthesis

Thanks for clarifying, I though you must be referring to this. I can't argue with God (not sure what 'in public' refers to) as I haven't heard anything from God.

All that matters is that moral authority comes from a source that cannot be corrupted by man's intellectualism. — synthesis

What are you thinking of here?

"...good arguments often do not change minds". Thanks for the warning. I believe everyone knows that logic (argument) alone doesn't quite do the job of convincing people. That's why rhetoric is a subject in its own right. — TheMadFool

Sorry - I was being superfluous.

They who "...aren't swayed by arguments" don't know what an argument is — TheMadFool

This can mean several things and I am not sure what your intent is. My experience is that good arguments often do not change minds. I think there may even be psychological studies on this for anyone who cares. Isn't it the case that people have emotional reasons for beliefs and this shields those beliefs from facts or arguments.

Sometimes spending time off by ourselves can also develop good or efficiency to others or the community itself. — javi2541997

Indeed. I hear you. Guilt effects even super-brains.

I, however, am not John Locke or the Buddha, for that matter - my time spent alone is only beneficial to me (potentially) and to no one else (unless you count those happy that I am not around :wink:) I have nothing to offer humanity by my solitude.

Then we can argue if it is good or bad for whatever reasons — javi2541997

Sure - I don't really have an opinion on this but I understand how it might be seen by some. I imagine a pragmatic person who finds introspection somewhat, shall we say pretentious, might bend this way. The time you are spending off by yourself you could be contributing to community, either in terms of actual work and interaction, or even via solidarity.

This is the point I want to debate with you about. It is interesting how Bakunin defended a life with social relation and then communities. Nevertheless, it surprised me why he thought being lonely for voluntary or personal reasons is considered as “selfish” then, he established that a selfish man cannot reach happiness. — javi2541997

I can see it. Choosing to be alone could be seen as narcissistic, self-important and entitled. My reading would be: Who am I that I need to set myself apart from all others just to spend time with my self-absorption?

I've been anti-capitalist since October 28th, 1982. Prior to that I was merely unenthusiastic. — Bitter Crank

Nice line BC! Was it not Wittgenstein who quipped that serious philosophy could be written entirely in jokes?

I love it! I can't tell if it's bait or true. — FlaccidDoor

It's the great post-modern theorist Kris Kristofferson.

They’ve actually been able to create cells from inorganic “Scientists in Scotland say they have taken their first tentative steps towards creating 'life' from inorganic chemicals potentially defining the new area of 'inorganic biology'.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110915091625.htm — Becky

I haven't been following the issue except via the odd smattering of media coverage. I have to say the origin of life has never been a preoccupation of mine partly because I don't think a scientific proof will change much. But I do own a fossil stromatolite from Western Australia which I got after seeing a lecture by physicist Paul Davies on the origin of life - stromatolites on Oz being the oldest known instances of life. It strikes me as amusing that most life on earth remains microbial. We don't seem to care for it.